How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jack R. Your Own Question
Jack R.
Jack R., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 6147
Experience:  OH/TX Practicing Attorney focusing on Family Law, Foreclosure, Landlord-Tenant Issues.
14472836
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Jack R. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

In Connecticut, a small claims judgment debtor has designated

Resolved Question:

In Connecticut, a small claims judgment debtor has designated $1,000 in a bank account as exempt from collection by the judgment creditor, pursuant to CT statute 52-352(b)(r),
which provides for a $1,000 post-judgment "wild card"
exemption. At a hearing on the entitlement of the judgment debtor to the exemption, what standard will the court apply, or is the judgment deurebtor entitled to the exemption as a matter of statutory right ? The underlying small claims judgment against the judgment debtor is for failure to repay an unsecured personal loan.
Submitted: 3 years ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  Thomas McJD replied 3 years ago.

TMcJD :

Hi, I will be happy to assist you, and it is my goal to make you a very satisfied customer! This may take a few minutes, so thanks for your patience.

TMcJD :

No, there is no standard. The debtor is entitled to the exemption as a matter or right. As such, so long as the debtor claims that exemption, then the creditor can not reach the $1,000 in the account because it is exempt from execution of the judgment.

TMcJD :

Please let me know if I can provide clarification or additional information. Thanks.

TMcJD :

I understand that this may not be what you wanted to hear -- if so, I am sorry. However, please understand that I'm only the messenger here and telling you about the law. Please don't shoot the messenger. Thanks for understanding!

Customer: replied 3 years ago.
What is the case or other authority that construes the exemption to be a matter of right ? If the
exemption is a matter of statutory right, then what is the purpose of the hea
ring on the claim of exemption for which the statute provides ?
Does the fact that the underlying judgment is for failure to repay an unsecured personal loan have any bearing on the issue of entitlement to the exemption ?
Expert:  Thomas McJD replied 3 years ago.
I'm sorry. I'm stepping away and don't have time to follow up on your additional question. I'll opt out and allow another expert to step in and continue assisting you. Don't worry about any rating. Thanks!
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
I will await a responses to my follow-up questions from your successor expert.
Expert:  Jack R. replied 3 years ago.
The prior expert was correct the exemption is absolute per Connecticut Statutes. You can look at the following case that holds that exemptions are to be liberally

liberally construed in favor of the owner who is claiming the exemption.

 

Konover Const. Corp. v. Silberstein, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, No. CV 02-0467948 S (July 22, 2003).

 

 

The following document is court generated treatise on Enforcing Judgments. page 34 references the case above

 

See: http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/Notebooks/Pathfinders/EnforcingMoneyJudgments.pdf

 

From the following form you can see that $1000.00 is explicitly listed as an exemption from a financial institution. (see Sec 4.) http://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/cv024a.pdf

 

 

Please press ACCEPT at the appropriate level of service so I may get credit for my response. If you have further questions please ask.

Jack R., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 6147
Experience: OH/TX Practicing Attorney focusing on Family Law, Foreclosure, Landlord-Tenant Issues.
Jack R. and 2 other Legal Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
Despite the fact that the answer - as I learned yesterday in Connecticut Superior Court - is wrong, I have already accepted it. Your reasoning was obviously flawed. The fact that a case holds that exemptions are to be construed liberally obviously is more logically read to mean that exemptions are not matters of statutory right because, if they were, no construal of them would ever be needed. And a form, claiming an exemption, is just that - a claim, subject to the court's discretion. The best analogy is probably to bankruptcy law where there are similar exemptions but the Magistrate may disallow all or any part of them.

At any rate, I have accepted your incorrect answer, and, if your records fail to reflect that, this email will serve as confirmation.
Expert:  Jack R. replied 3 years ago.
I am happy to hear that the court allowed you to pierce the exemption. i cannot speak to what happened to you. I am surprised that the court disallowed the exemption.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
I agree that that you cannot speak to my issue and I would suggest that you should not have. Connecticut is not the jurisdiction within which you practice and judgment collection is infrequent in your areas of expertise.

However, if your records reflect that I have accepted your answer, then we're done here. If not, please correct them.
Expert:  Jack R. replied 3 years ago.
Records reflect you have accepted.